World Politics

[Anonymous]

I'd bet 100 dollars you think reagan bombed Libya about pan am 103

With no help from the french or spanish if I recall..Bet you hardly knew it even happened much less were informed about it...I bet you thought Tom Cruise flew one of the F111s LOL...

You are REELING! Effing hilarious Trust me, I don't have to put lol 'cause I am laughing my ass off. Your guy is as bad as mine and you were so far above me in every conceivable way, now weren't you?

So, who did you vote for again?... please remind all of us, oh that's right, a killer of babies.

No accusations, you got nothin'. Sucks don't it?

 

[redtreviso]

You are REELING! Effing hilarious Trust me, I don't have to put lol 'cause I am laughing my ass off. Your guy is as bad as mine and you were so far above me in every conceivable way, now weren't you?

So, who did you vote for again?... please remind all of us, oh that's right, a killer of babies.

No accusations, you got nothin'. Sucks don't it?

Your guy did this along with many other things.. You won't see Obama taking similar action against UAE or Bahrain. The right wing should be pleased..I am sure Raytheon or Lockheed PNAC board members or CJing tonight.

 

[Anonymous]

Your guy did this along with many other things.. You won't see Obama taking similar action against UAE or Bahrain. The right wing should be pleased..I am sure Raytheon or Lockheed PNAC board members or CJing tonight.

Why did you have to put a photo of Powell up there? Was he the only black guy you could find? Racist...

BTW, Powell is a big BO supporter. He's one of you.

 

[redtreviso]

Why did you have to put a photo of Powell up there? Was he the only black guy you could find? Racist...

BTW, Powell is a big BO supporter. He's one of you.

Not...and he sure wasn't then.. He could have been the first american black president until he lied to the world for SFB Bush..(your guy)..

 

[rhubroma]

Okay. Obama is officially a warmonger. You heard it here first.

I guess the left in this country can now begin to piss themselves, for they have elected another in a long line of warmongering American Presidents.

All I'm saying is, give peace a chance. I mean, can't we all just get along?

Calling Obama a warmonger is like calling the Pope a progressivist.

No, we can't. However things were made much worse with the doctrine of "preventative war," and this is what Obama inherited. The big question should be: if Bush and the neocons hadn't invaded Iraq yesterday (based on a consciously constructed false premise to sell their cause to the international community), would the West's intervention in Libya today be much more credible from the ethical point of view and much less complicated in terms of image and intentions perception before the other Arab states? The answer is a resounding yes to both.

Yet had the West continued to do nothing while the massacres continued, what would the effects have been in these same regards (ethics and image) before the world and especially the region? Especially after America's and the so called Coalition of the Willing's mad, precipitous rush under the pressures of the Bush administration (note the Colin Powell image above) to "bring democracy" to Mesopotamia? Or does America only "export democracy" when there is really something to gain economically? Certainly for the Europeans there is in Libya.

So it is a huge mess, though it was not caused by the current Washington administration, but is in reality the inheritance it (which means Obama) received from the previous one with all the contingent factors currently at work.

The irony is that the madmen who were in power that brought America and the West into Iraq to reshape it into a more desirable image, are getting exactly what they wanted, though now those same conservative political voices today are making the loudest cries for non-intervention in Libya. What hypocrites, if not to say criminals when considering the innocents they had slaughtered in Iraq and those equally innocent they refuse to help today in North Africa. Or the liberation and liberty they want to by force cause, against that which they wish to remain indifferent about.

Finally, what is to happen to Libya in the post-Gaddafi era. Should the country remain unified, or should it be remembered that that unity was merely an invention; because Tripolitana and Cyrenaica in reality are diverse from the historical, tribal and religious points of view and their forced unification was imposed firstly by Italian colonialism during the fascist period and secondly by Gaddafi's dictatorship since?

And on this last note, while the military operation has begun (with France and Britain assuming the leadership role withing the EU), the political debate in Europe is still rather open. To help the insurgents, prevent the rais' militia forces from occupying Benghazi and Tobruk, provide aid to the refugees and construct a bulwark against the millions of North African immigrants that will seek Europe's borders as a new home are aspects which everyone is agreed upon. But what is to happen to Gaddafi and Libya afterward are open questions for which nobody has yet the answers. This great debate transversely divides Europe's public opinion and also the Union's governments. To bomb or negotiate? That is the question, and it is a question that especially divides Sarkozy's Paris with Angela Merkel's Berlin.

The first objection to bombing Libya is that no UN mandate can violate a state's sovereignty, which hasn't itself violated another's though a military attack. Yet Bush's armed forces hunted down Saddam Hussein all the way to Baghdad, then had the Iraqis try and execute him.The second objection is: what happens afterward? A Libya without a leader, without a ruling establishment, will still be governable? Will it break up into two, three, five pieces? And what about its oil? Its cities? Its foreign investments? The pessimists foresee that Libya will become another Somalia, a nest of terrorists and pirates. But is this the common fate of all the former North African colonies? Certainly without heavy investments and guidance from over seas, it is a possible outcome. However, these folks don't see in Tripolitana and Cyrenaica an evolved part of society that desires to join modernity. And it is precisely these people that the West, and even those in the region like Turkey and Egypt, must help to form a new Libyan State if Gaddafi steps down or is eliminated.

But will this happen? After Iraq and Afghanistan is there the political will and, above all, material possibility to ensure that Libya doesn't become Somalia II? While leaving Gaddafi brutally repress the opposition is something which only the most hardened cynic could realistically assist to without any sense of a moral dilemma. What has been made painfully evident now, however, is that after Iraq the West is in a much more complicated position than before and can't simply let history take its course while it looks on inertly from beyond.

 

[Cobblestones]

Red, I'm thinking this deal with Libya might be the first thing you can't blame on Bush.

Weird, huh?

Scott, I agree. It is warmongering and Obama is making a huge mistake (not that McCain/Palin would have done anything better I presume).

The point is that Libya is a more tribal society. Some parts have benefitted greatly from Gaddafi's rule, others haven't, so they rebel. We're taking side in a civil war. This is different from Egypt and Tunisia. It's going to be more like Iraq and Afghanistan. There's not much suggesting the rebel side wishes to implement democracy and equal rights in the whole country. We help breaking it now, we're going to pay for it later.

I dont know what possessed the UK and France to press forward. Presumably they were embarrassed by their earlier dealings with Gaddafi. Let them sort it out if they really want to.

A better solution would have been to negotiate a degree of autonomy to the Eastern provinces (short of splitting the country) with military observers supervising the ceasefire.

 

[rhubroma]

Scott, I agree. It is warmongering and Obama is making a huge mistake (not that McCain/Palin would have done anything better I presume).

The point is that Libya is a more tribal society. Some parts have benefitted greatly from Gaddafi's rule, others haven't, so the rebel. We're taking side in a civil war. This is different from Egypt and Tunisia. It's going to be more like Iraq and Afghanistan. There's not much suggesting the rebel side wishes to implement democracy and equal rights in the whole country. We help breaking it now, we're going to pay for it later.

I dont know what possessed the UK and France to press forward. Presumably they were embarrassed by their earlier dealings with Gaddafi. Let them sort it out if they really want to.

A better solution would have been to negotiate a degree of autonomy to the Eastern provinces (short of splitting the country) with military observers supervising the ceasefire.

Partly economic interests in the region, partly humanitarian.

Letting them sort it out if they really want to would be much less hypocritical on our part, had the West not have had so many sins to atone for from the colonial period (when it sorted everything out through prepotency) and had we not recently invaded Mesopotamia.

I'm not for military action as a medicine for anything, however, the situation is far too dramatic for the people the rais has turned his militia (with arms we sold him) against to do nothing, while Gaddafi will not peacefully step down, nor the Libyan's spontaneously arrive at a modern liberal state without external assistance.

The problem is, as I see it, once you've established a precedent of strategic political backing, military intervention and arms trading, then it is a very difficult business to get out of and leads to a host of nefarious states. Libya is a most potent reminder of this.

 

[Cobblestones]

Partly economic interests in the region, partly humanitarian.

Letting them sort it out if they really want to would be much less hypocritical on our part, had the West not have had so many sins to atone for from the colonial period (when it sorted everything out through prepotency) and had we not recently invaded Mesopotamia.

I'm not for military action as a medicine for anything, however, the situation is far too dramatic for the people the rais has turned his militia (with arms we sold him) against to do nothing, while Gaddafi will not peacefully step down, nor the Libyan's spontaneously arrive at a modern liberal state without external assistance.

The problem is, as I see it, once you've established a precedent of strategic political backing, military intervention and arms trading, then it is a very difficult business to get out of and leads to a host of nefarious states. Libya is a most potent reminder of this.

Well, that's precisely it. France is embarrassed by having sold quite modern warplanes etc. to Libya. The UK (or rather Scotland) has let one of the Lockerbie guys go in exchange of what precisely?

Also, make no mistake, there is great support for Gaddafi among some of the tribes. Just as there was support for Saddam in Iraq, and there is support for the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Taking side with the rebels (instead of simply supervising some ceasefire agreement), will just fuel a civil war with much more humanitarian hardship.

Also, letting 'them' sort out, I was referring to France and UK. I don't see why the US had to take part in this. We could have taken a similar stance as Germany.

 

[rhubroma]

Well, that's precisely it. France is embarrassed by having sold quite modern warplanes etc. to Libya. The UK (or rather Scotland) has let one of the Lockerbie guys go in exchange of what precisely?

Also, make no mistake, there is great support for Gaddafi among some of the tribes. Just as there was support for Saddam in Iraq, and there is support for the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Taking side with the rebels (instead of simply supervising some ceasefire agreement), will just fuel a civil war with much more humanitarian hardship.

Also, letting 'them' sort out, I was referring to France and UK. I don't see why the US had to take part in this. We could have taken a similar stance as Germany.

The big difference between Iraq and Libya, is that the former did not have millions crying out after a major revolt in this significant moment against the rais "how long will the brutality of repression last, while the world watches and does nothing?"

This cry is exactly what we have been hearing from the Libyans.

Without America's involvement France and Britain would have had to move alone, and in the UE this means having your hands tied.

There are no easy solutions.
PS: I read before that there was a noted British economist (whose name escapes me now) of Maghreb origins who several months ago greeted Gaddafi with "Hello, my brother", which only reinforces how complicated and, in many ways, paradoxical, the situation is.

 

[Cobblestones]

The big difference between Iraq and Libya, is that the former did not have millions crying out after a major revolt in this significant moment against the rais "how long will the brutality of repression last, while the world watches and does nothing?"

This cry is exactly what we have been hearing from the Libyans.

Without America's involvement France and Britain would have had to move alone, and in the UE this means having your hands tied.

There are no easy solutions.

You're forgetting the Shia revolt after the first Gulf War. Or the Kurds. We didn't do anything then either.

And I doubt that all Libyans would agree with the revolt. As I said before, Gaddafi does have great support among some tribes. They would loathe to see him go and let eastern tribes take over the country.

 

[rhubroma]

You're forgetting the Shia revolt after the first Gulf War. Or the Kurds. We didn't do anything then either.

And I doubt that all Libyans would agree with the revolt. As I said before, Gaddafi does have great support among some tribes. They would loathe to see him go and let eastern tribes take over the country.

But this was before we invaded Mesopotamia to "export democracy", the situation has morally, psychologically and politically completely changed since then.

Indeed they don't all agree with the revolt, however, this isn't the issue nor the problem, which is that a part of those who don't agree are bombing those who began as protesters calling for a dictator's resignation.

This is the crux of the dilemma. And why the business I mentioned before is easy enough and lucrative enough to get into, but incredibly difficult to get out of.

 

[Cobblestones]

But this was before we invaded Mesopotamia to "export democracy", the situation has morally, psychologically and politically completely changed since then.

Indeed they don't all agree with the revolt, however, this isn't the issue nor the problem, which is that a part of those who don't agree are bombing those who began as protesters calling for a dictator's resignation.

This is the crux of the dilemma. And why the business I mentioned before is easy enough and lucrative enough to get into, but incredibly difficult to get out of.

I still think a supervised ceasefire with the idea of autonomy given to the Eastern parts would have been a better start.

 

[rhubroma]

I still think a supervised ceasefire with the idea of autonomy given to the Eastern parts would have been a better start.

Everybody would have prefered that from our end, there was only one problem, Gaddafi.

 

[Darryl Webster]

These strikes against Libya/ Gadaffi have nothing to do with any humanitarien interests. Oil/ control in the region.
It`s all about that .
If it isnt will some of you please explain were were western concerns over the many, many, millions Killed under Stalin and Moi?.

Only an idiot believes the west is a peace loving democracy.

 

[Cobblestones]

Everybody would have prefered that from our end, there was only one problem, Gaddafi.

I think you're underestimating his self-preservation instinct.

Anyway, what is the strategy here once the airplanes and tanks are taken out? Leveling the playing field for a civil war? Trying to land a lucky hit on Gaddafi's tent? And then what? Are any Arab nations participating in the airstrikes? Securing the oil fields and pipelines?

 

[fatandfast]

Is it called a hat trick when you have 3 wars going at one time? Nothing says we are trying to help you like dropping bombs. Hey Obama what about the 60,000 strong royal family in SA? What kind of bombs are you using to stop that aggression? Humanitarian cruise missiles has a good ring to it

 

[rhubroma]

These strikes against Libya/ Gadaffi have nothing to do with any humanitarien interests. Oil/ control in the region.
It`s all about that .
If it isnt will some of you please explain were were western concerns over the many, many, millions Killed under Stalin and Moi?.

Only an idiot believes the west is a peace loving democracy.

I'm well aware of the realpolitik behind the operation, I meant humanitarian in the sense of that part of the public that actually gives a damn about Gaddafi's victims.

 

[The Hitch]

Only an idiot believes the west is a peace loving democracy.

Just because the West doesnt do something for humanitarian reasons, doesnt mean people cant support it on the grounds that it might end up humanitarian, a argument which can in this case be made.

And there are plenty of examples of Western Governments going that extra step to help third world countries out of altruism.

hese strikes against Libya/ Gadaffi have nothing to do with any humanitarien interests. Oil/ control in the region.
It`s all about that .

War is such a potentially damaging issue for politicians, i really doubt that all the countries behind these stikes are secretly hoping for billions of blood money in return and willing to risk their careeers and governments which they have spent their lives building up for, for it. There are far easier ways for these people to guarantee retirremnet in comfort.

A answer that explains everything explains nothing.

If it isnt will some of you please explain were were western concerns over the many, many, millions Killed under Stalin and Moi?.

That idea is ridiculous. How would you go about starting a war with the Soviet Union?

And since i presume you mean Mao. So even more to the point, how could 1950's US UK and France have started a war with China?

Britain actually did start a war with Stalin, and it wasnt for any oil interests as it could have very easily remained neutral. They just had to change sides halfway in.

Sticking with the period, Western forces, who you say are only ever motivated by potential for personal profit, went to truly great lengths to stop the holocoust.

Even facist italy, started taking weapons from their ally Croatia when they heard the UStache were organising genocide on serbs.

People are bad, but this idea that all persons become some sort of cold feelingless robots the second they get into any sort of power is wrong.

 

[rhubroma]

I think you're underestimating his self-preservation instinct.

Anyway, what is the strategy here once the airplanes and tanks are taken out? Leveling the playing field for a civil war? Trying to land a lucky hit on Gaddafi's tent? And then what? Are any Arab nations participating in the airstrikes? Securing the oil fields and pipelines?

Not at all. On the other, when does the West's responsibility in the dictatorships and conflicts they have caused in North Africa post-colonialism, and its current "agenda" to promote liberty and fight political repression around the globe, make watching the brutality from the sidelines no longer tenable.

And I'm not talking about the economic concerns, even if they are always at the basis of things. I don't have an answer. However, leaving the rebels to their fate seems like a cruel injustice given the role we have always played in the region, especially after 03.

This is why I have always found politics to be so appalling.

 

[Cobblestones]

Not at all. On the other, when does the West's responsibility in the dictatorships and conflicts they have caused in North Africa post-colonialism, and its current "agenda" to promote liberty and fight political repression around the globe, make watching the brutality from the sidelines no longer tenable.

And I'm not talking about the economic concerns, even if they are always at the basis of things. I don't have an answer. However, leaving the rebels to their fate seems like a cruel injustice given the role we have always played in the region, especially after 03.

This is why I have always found politics to be so appalling.

I do not advocate watching from the sidelines.

Pretty soon, I assume we're getting pictures of cruise missiles hitting civilian targets. Some of it might even be real, not propaganda. It happens all the time in Afghanistan, and with drone strikes in Pa-kistan (fvcking filter software). That's going to look great

There's absolutely no long-term strategy or goal behind the action. Let me ask two simple questions, and you'll see there's no good answers:

1) Do any Arab nations participate in this?
2) If so, are those democratic Arab nations?

No Western leader has even bothered to answer 1), which is a fairly straightforward question. So, you see, this war will eventually be cast in term of neo-colonialism, imperialism, religious war, etc. etc. The one thing this does decidedly NOT look like is help in the struggle of the region for democracy and self-determination.

 

[rhubroma]

I do not advocate watching from the sidelines.

Pretty soon, I assume we're getting pictures of cruise missiles hitting civilian targets. Some of it might even be real, not propaganda. It happens all the time in Afghanistan, and with drone strikes in Pa-kistan (fvcking filter software). That's going to look great

There's absolutely no long-term strategy or goal behind the action. Let me ask two simple questions, and you'll see there's no good answers:

1) Do any Arab nations participate in this?
2) If so, are those democratic Arab nations?

No Western leader has even bothered to answer 1), which is a fairly straightforward question. So, you see, this war will eventually be cast in term of neo-colonialism, imperialism, religious war, etc. etc. The one thing this does decidedly NOT look like is help in the struggle of the region for
democracy and self-determination.

Most likely.

There was talk of having the Arab League participate, but are they qualified? Have the historical relationship between the Arabs and the West made this prohibitive? Were the Arabs capable of handling the situation alone? If so, how would the US and Europe have reacted and how would Israel have?

 

[Cobblestones]

Most likely.

There was talk of having the Arab League participate, but are they qualified? Have the historical relationship between the Arabs and the West made this prohibitive? Were the Arabs capable of handling the situation alone? If so, how would the US and Europe have reacted and how would Israel have?

Yeah, the Arab league with members such as Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, just to mention a few. Great company. I'm just now watching Sunday morning politics. You wouldn't believe how some of the returds are waxing about the Arab league :facepalm:

The only two nations which should lead this are Egypt and Tunisia. Nothing would build a new democratic identity faster than exporting it to a neighboring country. It would have credibility and avoid most of the issues I mentioned in my previous post. It might still look like an oil grab, I admit.

ETA Breaking news: Arab league criticizes airstrikes. There you have it. This is precisely going down as I feared. We should have let the French and Brits own this mess.

 

[rhubroma]

Yeah, the Arab league with members such as Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, just to mention a few. Great company. I'm just now watching Sunday morning politics. You wouldn't believe how some of the returds are waxing about the Arab league :facepalm:

The only two nations which should lead this are Egypt and Tunisia. Nothing would build a new democratic identity faster than exporting it to a neighboring country. It would have credibility and avoid most of the issues I mentioned in my previous post. It might still look like an oil grab, I admit.

ETA Breaking news: Arab league criticizes airstrikes. There you have it. This is precisely going down as I feared. We should have let the French and Brits own this mess.

That was predictable.

As far as Egypt and Tunisia goes, they've got their hands full at the moment. You're right, I think, this should have ideally been an affair that was handled within the region. The reality is that this was never going to be possible.

The best alternative, perhaps, was Arab initiative with Western help. But was this ever really a possibility? Given the events since 2003 in the Middle East and considering the impact, on both sides, Israel factors in any such a hypothetical alliance (for example, the Palestinian question alone)?

This means the West is in a classic catch-22. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, yet time was running out for the anti-Gaddafi progressivists in Libya. The Arab leaders have cried scandal and have denounced the actions as typical Western imperialism. Yet this is the same leadership that is terrified of seeing a fellow regime taken down, because they realize that the next time any one of them could be the target of a popular revolt.

It's likely, however, that at least some of the population does not see things this way and these are the people we should be sustaining.

 

[Anonymous]

Is it called a hat trick when you have 3 wars going at one time? Nothing says we are trying to help you like dropping bombs. Hey Obama what about the 60,000 strong royal family in SA? What kind of bombs are you using to stop that aggression? Humanitarian cruise missiles has a good ring to it

+1

This is all about oil. If I had wanted a chicken hawk warmonger as president, I would have advocated Cheney run last time.

 

[Cobblestones]

That was predictable.

As far as Egypt and Tunisia goes, they've got their hands full at the moment. You're right, I think, this should have ideally been an affair that was handled within the region. The reality is that this was never going to be possible.

The best alternative, perhaps, was Arab initiative with Western help. But was this ever really a possibility? Given the events since 2003 in the Middle East and considering the impact, on both sides, Israel factors in any such a hypothetical alliance (for example, the Palestinian question alone)?

This means the West is in a classic catch-22. We're damned if we do and damned if we don't, yet time was running out for the anti-Gaddafi progressivists in Libya. The Arab leaders have cried scandal and have denounced the actions as typical Western imperialism. Yet this is the same leadership that is terrified of seeing a fellow regime taken down, because they realize that the next time any one of them could be the target of a popular revolt.

It's likely, however, that at least some of the population does not see things this way and these are the people we should be sustaining.

Nonetheless, the agreement of the Arab league with the no-fly zone was seen as the 'sea change moment'.

I don't agree with you. Egypt's military is likely very much superior. A lot of US help went into it, lot's of US trained officers. They should be able to handle Libya on their own (although it would be quite a bit messier). Also, it would help building a national, democratic identity. Just imagine Egypt's gain in status had they done that. I believe it would have been possible to convince them within a few days. Libya is in a state of civil war, not genocide or great humanitarian crisis. There was no catch 22. Time wasn't running out (yet).

What have you now? Old colonial powers (UK, France), supported by some autocratic Arab states (UAE, Qatar) and other countries with oil interests supposedly bringing democracy and self-determination to Libya? How many people in the Arab world will see it this way? You are dreaming. This is an old fashioned grab for oil clothed as humanitarian intervention. Nothing more, nothing less, and that's precisely how it will be perceived.

You are rightly bringing up Palestine. Why is there no humanitarian intervention on behalf of Gaza? Why is Israel allowed to build settlement after settlement on the West Banks? Why is Bahrain allowed to invite foreign troops to suppress their Shia majority? Why is Yemen allowed to massacre their population during peaceful protests?

I would like to see Gaddafi disappear. The sooner the better. But this is the wrong way. Among others it makes it easier for Syria etc. to claim that their own protesters are Western puppets.

ETA: Read this from a few days ago. There's talk about Arab participation and leadership. Does, what we have now look like Arab leadership, or even participation? The 'participation' of UAE and Qatar which we're still waiting for looks more like a fig leaf than anything else. Meanwhile the Arab league has turned on a dime (not that anybody should really care about some of those opinions).